“It fosters better working relationships if leadership stays out of these races.”

Other

Don't Miss Today's Top Stories

Sign up form for the newsletter

“It depends. But supporting a super PAC that indiscriminately targets long-serving members is outrageous by any standard.”

Should congressional leadership take sides or spend money in a member-versus-member primary?

Republicans (21 Votes)

Yes: 24% No: 68% Other (volunteered): 9%

Yes

“It is courageous to do so, and this town needs a lot more courage. I vote yes.”

“Occasionally it may be necessary, building a strong team for the long term is important.”

“On the rare occasion when member-member races occur, backing the more conservative candidate is for the good of the party.”

“It has serious consequences for leadership, but they certainly have the right to do what’s necessary to shape the majority.”

“Outside groups are taking sides and spending lots of money in member-versus-member primaries. Why should leadership let outside special-interest groups dictate who will be part of their caucus?”

No

“It’s not good for party unity!”

“Leaders should always stay clear of member-versus-member races. Cantor’s failure to do so is the biggest miscalculation of his congressional career. His enemies will use it against him for years to come. Indeed, they already are.”

“It certainly does not make the whip’s job any easier.”

Other

“[It] depends on circumstances.”

“Leadership or leadership-to-be always takes sides, most especially in fundraising assistance. The question here is: Will Republican leaders support conservatives like they claim to be, or will their goal be maintaining power? That’s what I thought—power triumphs conservative beliefs. My point is, it doesn’t matter. They always have and always will.”

How excited are you that Mitt Romney is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee?